Territorial jurisdiction in IP suits is limited where the cause of action arises at the plaintiff's business location

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act were read with Section 20 CPC and the rule in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia to hold that the plaintiff could not invoke Delhi jurisdiction merely because its principal office was there when it also carried on business at Deogarh, where the alleged infringement and passing off arose. Delhi was therefore not a proper forum on the plaint averments. Once territorial jurisdiction was found lacking, the proper course was return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, not dismissal in limine. The dismissal order was set aside and the plaint was directed to be returned for filing before the competent court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 when the plaintiff had its principal office in Delhi but also carried on business at Deogarh, Jharkhand, where the cause of action arose. (ii) Whether the suit could be dismissed in limine for want of territorial jurisdiction, or the plaint had to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 when the plaintiff had its principal office in Delhi but also carried on business at Deogarh, Jharkhand, where the cause of action arose.

Analysis: The relevant jurisdictional provisions were read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the rule in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia. The statutory scheme gives a plaintiff an additional forum at the place where it resides or carries on business, but that benefit cannot be used to sue at a different place merely because the principal office is there when the cause of action has arisen at the place where the plaintiff also carries on business. On the plaint averments, the plaintiff carried on business at Deogarh through its hotel, and the alleged infringement and passing off also arose there. Delhi was therefore not an available forum on these facts.

Conclusion: The court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in Delhi.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could be dismissed in limine for want of territorial jurisdiction, or the plaint had to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

Analysis: Once the court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, the proper course was not dismissal of the suit on merits but return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The jurisdictional defect justified return of the plaint for filing before the competent court.

Conclusion: The suit ought not to have been dismissed in limine and the plaint had to be returned.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside, the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the proper court, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff carries on business at the place where the cause of action has arisen, it cannot invoke the additional forum under the trade mark and copyright statutes to sue at another place where it merely has its principal office; if territorial jurisdiction is absent, the plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---